# data[].attributes.body
On page 22 Henrietta Moore's argument of the body as the materialisation of its relation to the world, is introduced. It centres on the idea that humans should be considered a part of the environment and not separate from it. In addition to this point, I think that the context provided by the authors also suggests that the human body is its own environment: "The scientific revelation is that the human body is not a singular organism, but can only exist in symbiosis with complex bacterial and other communities. Our bodies are a series of nested environments composed of several multispecies living arrangements that are themselves embedded in larger systems.". This implies that the human body exists as a sort of microcosm that reflects the environment it exists within.

# data[].attributes.headline
Crutzen does a Good  job of Depicting the sheer overwhelming force that is the Anthropos of the Anthropocene. Not only do we take up vast amounts of space for our continued existence but we produce more of major toxic gases and greenhouse gases than the earth can naturally remove. Demonstrating the excess of modernity in terms of ecology. However in the latter part of the article Crutzen then suggests a reliance on engineers and scientists to fix the problem. However, from Brightman and Lewis we know that this Top down approach to sustainability is flawed even at the level of attempting to control markets. Evidence-based solutions such as REDD+ give power and priority to experts. the importance of  cultural diversity in the solution for sustainability and environmental diversity is ignored.  I think this article shows the long way in which 'traditional' sciences have to go in appreciating the work, knowledge and experience of groups lower down in their own hierarchy's. 696422

# data[].attributes.subject
Crutzen does a Good  job of Depicting the sheer overwhelming force that is the Anthropos of the Anthropocene. Not only do we take up vast amounts of space for our continued existence but we produce more of major toxic gases and greenhouse gases than the earth can naturally remove. Demonstrating the excess of modernity in terms of ecology. However in the latter part of the article Crutzen then suggests a reliance on engineers and scientists to fix the problem. However, from Brightman and Lewis we know that this Top down approach to sustainability is flawed even at the level of attempting to control markets. Evidence-based solutions such as REDD+ give power and priority to experts. the importance of  cultural diversity in the solution for sustainability and environmental diversity is ignored.  I think this article shows the long way in which 'traditional' sciences have to go in appreciating the work, knowledge and experience of groups lower down in their own hierarchy's. 696422

# data[].attributes.headline
I do not have a background in social science, my background is biology and I was quite surprised by how opinionated and biased some parts of this piece were, for example Tsing wryly's observation on pathogen-plantation relationships: 'Welcome to the Anthropocene, in which alienated and disengaged organisms, including humans, multiply and spread without regard to multispecies living arrangements'. I Thought this was entirely cynical, leaned on racist and classist arguments of population control and doesn't reflect the reality of people wanting multiple children and therefore wasn't a helpful contribution. When they talk about alienated and disengaged organisms do they speak of our societies that show increasing trends towards individualism? furthermore the least alive of all the pathogens, viruses are not alienated or disengaged. In fact they rely on obligate symbionts and incorporating themselves into host DNA to survive and viruses such as Herpes simplex (cold sores) live along side their hosts. I think a metaphor along these lines would be more accurate and possibly more helpful, because mankind will never be separate or completely nonharmful to its environment, but this because of how entirely dependant on it we are and the difficulty of balancing our own needs and desires with that of our host, the earth. 696422

# data[].attributes.subject
I do not have a background in social science, my background is biology and I was quite surprised by how opinionated and biased some parts of this piece were, for example Tsing wryly's observation on pathogen-plantation relationships: 'Welcome to the Anthropocene, in which alienated and disengaged organisms, including humans, multiply and spread without regard to multispecies living arrangements'. I Thought this was entirely cynical, leaned on racist and classist arguments of population control and doesn't reflect the reality of people wanting multiple children and therefore wasn't a helpful contribution. When they talk about alienated and disengaged organisms do they speak of our societies that show increasing trends towards individualism? furthermore the least alive of all the pathogens, viruses are not alienated or disengaged. In fact they rely on obligate symbionts and incorporating themselves into host DNA to survive and viruses such as Herpes simplex (cold sores) live along side their hosts. I think a metaphor along these lines would be more accurate and possibly more helpful, because mankind will never be separate or completely nonharmful to its environment, but this because of how entirely dependant on it we are and the difficulty of balancing our own needs and desires with that of our host, the earth. 696422

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the above and I also think it's interesting that he points out the industrial revolution and advancement of technology as a potential marker for the beginning of the Anthropocene yet still suggests that we can engineer our way out of the problem. Perhaps this view is a reflection of the times, as it was written almost 20 years ago. Efforts by the IPBES for example to engage with indigenous and local knowledges give me some optimism that solutions will have greater social legitimacy. 695806

# data[].attributes.body
I also agree with the latter. Undoubtedly, scientists and engineers do play a huge role in the fight against climate change. However, now it is becoming more apparent that big corporations and states also have a huge role to play when it comes to combating climate change. Simple large changes such as legislation can be made by these big global players but as we can see sometimes they do not occur or are not effective. Therefore, a change in attitude towards the environment by global players I believe is just as valuable as the scientific side. 696262

# data[].attributes.headline
Something I found very interesting was Manuela Carneiro da Cunha’s examination of agricultural biodiversity. The fact that historically 7,000 species of plants have been used by humans as food while today 75% of our food consumption is composed of just twelve crops was very surprising. While Cunha points out that there is no practical reason for producing and maintaining such a large variety of crops, I still found it interesting that most of our food consumption comes from such a small amount of crops. -- Jane (695210)

# data[].attributes.subject
Something I found very interesting was Manuela Carneiro da Cunha’s examination of agricultural biodiversity. The fact that historically 7,000 species of plants have been used by humans as food while today 75% of our food consumption is composed of just twelve crops was very surprising. While Cunha points out that there is no practical reason for producing and maintaining such a large variety of crops, I still found it interesting that most of our food consumption comes from such a small amount of crops. -- Jane (695210)

# data[].attributes.headline
To respond to the post on "Human bodies as microcosms":

# data[].attributes.subject
To respond to the post on "Human bodies as microcosms":

# data[].attributes.body
I found this perspective incredibly grounding. In the Western world, and this was touched on in the lecture as well when we discussed Judeo-Christian ideas and how they have shaped the Western world's perspective, we very much are taught to see ourselves as superior to the nature around us. We are taught to believe that nature exists to satisfy human need which is what has brought us to the problems in overconsumption that we are facing today. -- Jane (695210)

# data[].attributes.body
I found the beginning statement: 'because of anthropogenic emissions of CO2, global climate may depart from natural behaviour for many millennia to come...' I would question the use of 'natural' here and ponder as to what Crutzen would see as 'natural' and 'unnatural'. While humans have produce and consume in a way that places ourselves separate from our world and environment + has caused significant damage on the planet. I would struggle to call our development 'unnatural' in some respects.
I feel Crutzen frames human activity as something 'unnatural' that must be dealt with separately (inferring a top down approach as others have mentioned) - rather than seeing the solution as humans and th environment/nature finding ways to live productively with one another. (695127 Melanie)

# data[].attributes.body
I found the post by the person with a background in biology (696422) quite insightful. I am from a social sciences background, and I did not have this perspective when reading. Personally, I found it more tongue in cheek to emphasize the point regarding anthropocene proliferation. However, the comment helped me reflect on the piece from a different perspective and wonder whether when trying to make anthropology relevant to the everyday, and for it to step outside theory, what is the right sort of language and how should we illustrate our points.
(695127 Melanie)

# data[].attributes.body
"Louise McKeever reflected ‘the real
planning for a safe and just transition is taking place not in the conference halls, but through people organizing in community halls, coffeeshops and their living rooms ... on the fringes of the UN climate summit, social movements are organizing their responses to the failure of politicians to address this crisis with urgency’. " I am curious about how engaged people feel about the fight for Climate Justice? What spaces are around you to foster this dialogue? Is it just part of the fabric of your community? I am curious what this quote brings up for you all. For me it reminds me of isolation. I think climate change and climate justice are not new concepts to people in my community.  But the spaces that this conversation takes place has seldom felt safe or even grounded in a reality that I can relate to. I think the best function of this has come in community + spiritual spaces. I am curious about what that has looked like for others.
Cherrah (695021)

# data[].attributes.headline
To respond to the post on agricultural biodiversity

# data[].attributes.subject
To respond to the post on agricultural biodiversity

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to join Jane in the surprise at how our crop consumption has decreased in variety. Carneiro speaks about "no obvious practical reasons" for maintaining such a wide biodiversity. I am aware that her aim is to actually champion agricultural variety, but this expression has caused me to reflect on our unconscious and intrinsic capitalistic view of the world. We do things for "practicality", "efficiency" and "quantity". How can we say that there are no practical reasons for pursuing biodiversity, when biodiversity is better for the earth, the animals that live on it and even humans themselves (a varied diet is in fact much better for our health than eating just a few selected crops)?
Elena (695342)

# data[].attributes.headline
I was pleased to note that the Brightman and Lewis ‘Introduction’, de-centres humans from sustainability, and argues for ‘sustained ontologies’ advocating  ‘a sort of human principle of respectful engagement with others – with other cultures and societies, and other species’ as a basis for sustainability;. However,  I would go further than just species, and embrace the Earth generally – oceans, mountains, rivers, soils  – because I believe all these stakeholders have a moral value in, and of, themselves, and not just because they make up  ‘the many nonhumans on whom we depend’  as referred to by the authors. Nigel Jeffery 655044@soas.ac.uk

# data[].attributes.subject
I was pleased to note that the Brightman and Lewis ‘Introduction’, de-centres humans from sustainability, and argues for ‘sustained ontologies’ advocating  ‘a sort of human principle of respectful engagement with others – with other cultures and societies, and other species’ as a basis for sustainability;. However,  I would go further than just species, and embrace the Earth generally – oceans, mountains, rivers, soils  – because I believe all these stakeholders have a moral value in, and of, themselves, and not just because they make up  ‘the many nonhumans on whom we depend’  as referred to by the authors. Nigel Jeffery 655044@soas.ac.uk

# data[].attributes.headline
Response to Cherrah - I agree with you that the fight for Climate Justice can be isolating, and I don't think it is (yet) part of the fabric of my community in leafy SW London. However, I remain optimistic, that previously marginalised voices are becoming less so, and I agree with Gard that we need to 'empower people to take ownership of the fight', which I believe can be done through education. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Response to Cherrah - I agree with you that the fight for Climate Justice can be isolating, and I don't think it is (yet) part of the fabric of my community in leafy SW London. However, I remain optimistic, that previously marginalised voices are becoming less so, and I agree with Gard that we need to 'empower people to take ownership of the fight', which I believe can be done through education. 

# data[].attributes.headline
The 'Response to Cherrah' above is by Nigel Jeffery 655044@soas.ac.uk

# data[].attributes.subject
The 'Response to Cherrah' above is by Nigel Jeffery 655044@soas.ac.uk

# data[].attributes.body
I liked the way in which the article used the language barrier of translating the world "sustainability" from English to Spanish to illustrate how there is no universal way of intending this word (like all others). Everything is relative and varies across cultures and even within cultures. We touched this during the first lecture, but the article emphasised it even more for me: I agree in the belief that we cannot solve the problems caused by a corporate way of doing things through another corporate way of doing things (even if the aim is sustainability). The word sustainability has many different facets and choosing only one of them could be extremely damaging to the others. There is so much to take into account before making a plan. Actually, there should be no "universal plan", nor standardized world, but a togetherness of different cultures and localities.
Elena (695342)

# data[].attributes.body
I found the theory of resilience and the arguments against it interesting. Whereas the proponents of resilience as the means to sustainability argue that developing in a way that we are able “to bounce back after a shock” is sustainable, the opponents to resilience, like Cleocleos (2013) think that we should rather focus our attention on the causes of the shock rather than trying to cope with it. In other words, sustainability should be dealing with the problem and not the effects of the problem. That is why Brightman and Lewis took the position that sustainability should be understood in three dimensions; tackling the causes of the situation, encouraging diversity at all levels and ensuring of a “future liveable earth”. I found this position challenging and also encouraging.
(Mathew W. Banseh 694947)

# data[].attributes.headline
Response to the post on Human bodies as microcosm

# data[].attributes.subject
Response to the post on Human bodies as microcosm

# data[].attributes.body
While it is very true that one of the flawed logic, as we saw in the lecture, human beings separating ourselves from the non-humans permits us to see the non-humans as resources which must be used, I also think that it will be difficult for us to foresee another kind of relationship. even those cultures that promote inclusiveness, also practice niche construction. All beings are interdependent and this makes us use other beings for our survival. I will therefore argue with Brightman and Lewis that we should tackle the causes of over consumerism and ensuring of a "future liveable earth"
(Mathew W. Banseh 694947)

# data[].attributes.headline
YES THE WORLD WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO HAS MANY PROBLEMS BUT WHAT NEXT?

# data[].attributes.subject
YES THE WORLD WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO HAS MANY PROBLEMS BUT WHAT NEXT?

# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed reading Brightman and Lewis’s Introduction. However there were so many “Yes you’re absolutely right but then what” moments for me. Especially when reading quotations from Anna Tsing, some of them sounds dangerously radical (I didn’t read her whole work just judging from the quotations). If the answer to our problems is there is no way but to tear it all down, it’s not really an answer that works.
For example, “At present most frameworks and practices aimed at achieving sustainability at best reduce unsustainability, but take for granted the underlying world order and modernist vision that is at the root of our ecological crisis.” I agree that many world problems we face today like climate change, gapping inequality etc, cannot be fundamentally dealt with under the current world order. But the real world isn’t like playing a video game where you can just tear it all down if there are too many problems. There really isn’t an Utopia where we can figure out what every plant and animal and human-being deserves.
And there wasn’t enough evidence in the text to persuade me that “modernism should be a battle cry that needs to be resisted everywhere.”
Also I couldn’t help but got a very subtle feeling that the writers were reducing entire indigenous populations to a single character of higher-up politicians and big corporations’ victims when reading the introduction somehow. Dynamics of the smallest communities could be just as complicated as those in metropolitan cities. Individuals that come from a same group could be living completely different lives.
Feiyao (695992)

# data[].attributes.body
“ when local populations are diapossed of their customary lands, in return fo scarce compensation, and forcibly kept out by armed patrols, such conservation has dubious claims to sustainability”->

This paragraph resonate powerfully with me which makes me relate the taiwnanese indignous people‘s experience- Truku people, thery are forcely evicted by the sate from the traditional land where are claiming to be conserve natural resource as the Truoko National Park.
——
Wrote by Yueh-Chou Ho(SOAS Student Number: 693655)

# data[].attributes.headline
To respond to the post on human bodies as microcosms

# data[].attributes.subject
To respond to the post on human bodies as microcosms

# data[].attributes.body
As Henrietta Moore says human beings are part of the environment. Does that imply that our cities are our 'nests'? What are the differences and similarities between nests and our cities and the way they adapt in our environment (e.g. materials, structure)? How do we reconceptualize our spaces to be closer to the idea of a nest or a hive which exists in equilibrium with the natural environment? Henrietta Moore breaks down the distinction between nature and humans, I found this borderless perspective very interesting and optimistic. As Jane mentioned we see ourselves as superiors to nature, perhaps tackling this ideology is the key to curbing our overconsumption. Ioli (695883)

# data[].attributes.body
I also think Crutzen’s view on what is natural/ unnatural really interesting and his idea that human activity is unnatural pondering. I find it a little hard to comprehend that his view in some way is contradictory to the idea that humans are not a creation the is distant from nature.
(Feiyao 695992)

# data[].attributes.headline
Gard’s personal experience of peaceful protest in the occupation of a German coal mine and his later reflection that he ‘was struck by the need for community groups, indeed people power around the world, to work in multiple and dynamic ways to weaken the power of the fossil fuel industry’ was powerful and equally disheartening. While the essence of Gard’s call for engaged individuals may be productive, the focus on the responsibility of the individual is surely convenient in that it shifts the burden from governments and corporations? (685899 Clare)

# data[].attributes.subject
Gard’s personal experience of peaceful protest in the occupation of a German coal mine and his later reflection that he ‘was struck by the need for community groups, indeed people power around the world, to work in multiple and dynamic ways to weaken the power of the fossil fuel industry’ was powerful and equally disheartening. While the essence of Gard’s call for engaged individuals may be productive, the focus on the responsibility of the individual is surely convenient in that it shifts the burden from governments and corporations? (685899 Clare)

# data[].attributes.body
Brightman and Lewis mention how different specialists touch different sides of the subject of sustainability and that 'technicists' and 'humanists', as Desmond McNeill names, have created a conflict and a separation between them. I related this point to how Ancient Greeks used to study several fields instead of specializing in just one. An individual could specify in sculpting and astronomy. This way of studying made them have broader and deeper knowledge in diverse subjects. Maybe there are advantages and downsides to these different approaches to sustainability, maybe we need to look towards a more holistic view including aspects from each approach and even from different fields. - Ioli (695883)

# data[].attributes.headline
Response to Melanie: man as separate from 'nature'

# data[].attributes.subject
Response to Melanie: man as separate from 'nature'

# data[].attributes.body
Really liked this observation Melanie.
It seems that this binary between the human on one side (and all that we identify with the 'human world' eg. society, culture) and 'nature' on the other has been a key part of the very mindset which has got us into the position we are in today - a human exploitation of the non-human for human ends.
This draws in the criticism of E.O. Wilson's propositions in 'Half Earth' examined in the Brightman and Lewis too - further segregating the human and the non-human in the name of conservation seems a flawed approach.
I've been reading through Descola's 'Beyond Nature and Culture' recently (to be honest most of it is still going totally over my head) and his analysis of the idea that in the majority of indigenous groups globally, nature IS culture has been really interesting. Is it our own societal constructs regarding human distinction from nature and the Scala Naturae with humans perched on top (now pretty precariously) which have convinced us otherwise? (Rosie, 696256)

# data[].attributes.headline
Sustainability & the importance of language

# data[].attributes.subject
Sustainability & the importance of language

# data[].attributes.body
I also really enjoyed the exploration of concepts embedded in language in this article. I've read many times that theories such as linguistic determinism are quite roundly criticised, but debates such as this over lexicon and associated world-views seem to me to argue a lot of valid points. Perhaps rather than linguistic determinism (a language determining world view) linguistic relativity is more appropriate? I enjoyed the summary here: "Marta lived and dreamed in the language Mam".

Certainly not a particularly academic resource but has anyone else seen the film Arrival? I really enjoyed its exploration of language shaping world-view and perceptions, even of concepts as large and presumptively universal such as time (as in Sapir-Whorf).
I suspect a developmental definition of 'sustainability' brainstormed and produced usually worlds apart from where it is often applied needs a re-think, if for nothing else only to acknowledge the diversity of associated meanings and therefore, the diversity of approaches required. (Rosie, 696256)

# data[].attributes.body
I listened to the Mark Carney podcast straight after reading this introduction by Brightman and Lewis, in which the Judeo-Christian origins of the free market pursuit of profit was also touched upon in a harrowing report. Values of societies have changed because of market mechanisms so that there is a mostly universal hierarchy based on wealth. How are we to therefore challenge such market authorities when they utilise the same rhetoric to their own advantage in advertising and policy change for example? Our task should be to tell, 'geo-stories' as Latour posits, and how different cultures have differing effects, good and bad, on the network of human and non-humans entities that inhabit these diverse places.

The most corrosive actent in this debate is the shift from human values to financial values, and how that is globally affecting our earth. But having thought globally for so long, how do we make the collective conscious shift to local a tangible reality? Sarah 683385

# data[].attributes.headline
For me, the paper covered themes that I was familiar with, from the need to centre local marginalised voices to the co-option of sustainability by market forces. One thing I found interesting was the flaw in the Bruntland’s report definition of sustainability that they highlighted: “apart from basic needs … only future generations will know their own needs”. It reminded me that we are taking away ‘choice’ at the same time as making decisions for the next generation based on the way we live today. I also hadn’t fully considered the huge role that nature itself plays in reversing the damage that we have created. When you consider that a huge proportion of getting to net zero involves reforesting and regenerating nature, instead of changing much of our heavy fuel consumption lives. Malaika 684973

# data[].attributes.subject
For me, the paper covered themes that I was familiar with, from the need to centre local marginalised voices to the co-option of sustainability by market forces. One thing I found interesting was the flaw in the Bruntland’s report definition of sustainability that they highlighted: “apart from basic needs … only future generations will know their own needs”. It reminded me that we are taking away ‘choice’ at the same time as making decisions for the next generation based on the way we live today. I also hadn’t fully considered the huge role that nature itself plays in reversing the damage that we have created. When you consider that a huge proportion of getting to net zero involves reforesting and regenerating nature, instead of changing much of our heavy fuel consumption lives. Malaika 684973

# data[].attributes.headline
The “Pressure to produce universally applicable models” could be one of the biggest red flags in development projects. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The “Pressure to produce universally applicable models” could be one of the biggest red flags in development projects. 

# data[].attributes.body
Pg 16. Para 2-3. [Unpacking the challenges posed by “internationally set” guidelines for REDD++]. This entire breakdown by Signe Howell hits the nail on the head in terms of explaining why highly funded “do-good” / “conscious” projects fail during implementation. Generalising the socio-cultural behaviour in communities and regions, and overlooking the on-ground cultural nuances leads to a heavily top-down approach to problem solving. This breaks when implemented due to the complexities of the situation on ground. Models need to have a high level of flexibility embedded within. There is a need for honest inclusivity and colloboration. Engaging and communicating with the beneficiary and the surrounding society could not only lead to a stronger buy-in, but allow implementation teams to customise models for long term success. And this needs to happen at every stage from policy/model planning to sustaining projects and initiatives post-implementation.

Harish Subu 695003

# data[].attributes.headline
[Response to:] Feiyao’s “What Next” point (695992)

# data[].attributes.subject
[Response to:] Feiyao’s “What Next” point (695992)

# data[].attributes.body
I’m so glad you’ve brought up this point. I was struggling with a similar sentiment as I was reading through the work (perhaps not as strong :)). I did identify a few optimistic, tangible suggestions trickle in across the writing:- be it around building more deeper, meaningful collaborations with policy makers (not sure which section i read it), or the paragraph on Pg 28, suggesting a more “‘political ontology’ approach that focuses on ‘worlds and worlding’”. That being said, I am keen to find more content around the “what next?” Theme. Information that’s not just hopeful, but tangible and actionable within the constrains of our current socio-political setting.

Harish Subu 695003

# data[].attributes.headline
In response to 696422, I agree that Crutzen’s paper presents a depoliticalized, scientific evaluation of the Anthropocene and climate change. I also agree that the reliance on “scientists and engineers to guide society towards environmentally sustainable management’ leaves out the huge changes that citizens and Governments also need to take. The scientific data on climate change is irrefutable and has been around for decades, but this has not been enough to get us to change. After reading social science papers for some time (in particular political ecology) I felt frustrated by everything that was missing from Crutzen’s paper. Malaika 684973

# data[].attributes.subject
In response to 696422, I agree that Crutzen’s paper presents a depoliticalized, scientific evaluation of the Anthropocene and climate change. I also agree that the reliance on “scientists and engineers to guide society towards environmentally sustainable management’ leaves out the huge changes that citizens and Governments also need to take. The scientific data on climate change is irrefutable and has been around for decades, but this has not been enough to get us to change. After reading social science papers for some time (in particular political ecology) I felt frustrated by everything that was missing from Crutzen’s paper. Malaika 684973

# data[].attributes.headline
I read this paper a few times as it raised so many questions for me and I enjoyed the ideas that came from it. Sustainability holds so much power and space but really it is only a word and what does it really signify? The idea that ‘sustainability is everywhere, and yet it is nowhere’ reminded me of the emptiness of the term that Brightman and Lewis were getting across in their introduction. Also I particularly enjoyed the quote: ‘sustainability is a progressive transition of a singular, causal system, leading us toward the project of developing a better future that has long been modernity’s destructive lure’. Modernity and its quest for constant bettering has caused the destruction of many communities, and it is their knowledge and practices that are most often ignored in sustainability conversations! Malaika 684973

# data[].attributes.subject
I read this paper a few times as it raised so many questions for me and I enjoyed the ideas that came from it. Sustainability holds so much power and space but really it is only a word and what does it really signify? The idea that ‘sustainability is everywhere, and yet it is nowhere’ reminded me of the emptiness of the term that Brightman and Lewis were getting across in their introduction. Also I particularly enjoyed the quote: ‘sustainability is a progressive transition of a singular, causal system, leading us toward the project of developing a better future that has long been modernity’s destructive lure’. Modernity and its quest for constant bettering has caused the destruction of many communities, and it is their knowledge and practices that are most often ignored in sustainability conversations! Malaika 684973

# data[].attributes.headline
A couple of thoughts on Anna Tsing's quote

# data[].attributes.subject
A couple of thoughts on Anna Tsing's quote

# data[].attributes.body
The quote which appears early on in the introduction - “ 'Sustainability' is the dream of passing a livable earth to future generations, human and nonhuman. The term is also used to cover up destructive practices, and this use has become so prevalent that the word most often makes me laugh and cry.’ Anna Tsing (2016) has stuck in my mind since first reading it. I have become very used to talking about sustainability in my 'day job' . The past week of learning has helped me realise just how mis-used this term is as it is "used to cover up destructive practices" that encourage 'green washing'. An illustration of this can be found in the UK where the government has accepted there's a climate & ecological emergency yet is doing very little to address the issues at any deep or fundamental level. It's content to pay lip service and set far in the future targets whilst, for example, heavily subsidising fossil fuel companies, supporting the introduction of a new coal mine in Northern England and off shore oil drilling in Scotland.
I really like the term 'livable earth'. I have children and more than anything I wish for a  'livable earth' for them and all future generations.
Nicole 696134

# data[].attributes.body
The image I had of anthropology before was that of a partial rather than a total theory as anthropology was the study of human life at the micro level, focusing on a particular community, its culture and customs. However, as it is said in the text, I thought that the values and practices involved could, in the long run, change the course of humanity from generation to generation. In this sense, the anthropological approach involves many different disciplines and can be seen as a holistic theory. I think it gave me a slightly different perspective to the one I had been thinking about.
Risa 693892

# data[].attributes.body
This introduction highlights that the problems  of dominant conceptions of sustainability, aimed, from the top-down, towards maintaining business-as-usual, stem from structural issues of political economy and hierarchies of knowledge. The anthropological perspective is one produced from the bottom-up, from the study of communities' responses to changing environments and not necessarily with the intention of simply sustaining what went before. It seems to me that a key question here is one of agency and scale - how to apply the lessons learnt at the local, communal level to policy-making at that of the structural and the global. Fundamentally, as Latour states, resisting modernism and its utilitarian view of nature is an ontological struggle.

George 677207

# data[].attributes.body
I found the exploration of the word sustainability through interpretations in other languages and their translation very powerful. I agree that a standardised world is not exactly desirable (in fact it would only exacerbate ecological breakdown), and that cultural diversity is crucial. As mentioned in Brightman and Lewis' introduction, cultural and biological diversity are connected and should be considered together. The introduction reinforces that the anthropological conception of sustainability places great importance on diversity in general.

George 677207

# data[].attributes.body
The statement from Katherine Homewood about contradiction lies in SDGs is quite true in the practice i.e. programs to overcome poverty with industrialization may hinder the programs to enhance ecosystems. This notion leads me to think broader and more considerate of the interconnection of SDGs in designing programs. - Surya (694529)

# data[].attributes.headline
Interconnection of Human and Environment

# data[].attributes.subject
Interconnection of Human and Environment

# data[].attributes.body
It is very interesting to know that the concept foundation of Anthropology of Sustainability is the realization of interconnection of human (micro-cosmos) and environment (macro-cosmos), as Bruno Latour argues that 'human activity is having a geological impact on the earth'. This notion is aligned with Buddhism concept that I learn and I believe with this perspective people can enable their awareness and actions to be more mindful thus creating a sustained viability for human, non-human, and the environment. - Surya (694529)

# data[].attributes.body
I found the contested views to resilience theory really interesting.  I agree with Neocleous’ (2013) argument that resilience theory takes the onus off corporations, NGOs and governments to take a proactive approach to addressing the root causes of natural disasters. Instead, this theory places too much emphasis on retrospective efforts to “bounce back”. But doesn't the lack of a clear definition and accountability for sustainability also prevent proactive action?  Amy, 694871

# data[].attributes.body
You make a really interesting point about the overreliance of top-down solutions and Crutzen’s oversight of the need for diversity at the heart of sustainability. The ‘traditional’ disciplines as you call them are often framing the debate in climate change and therefore influencing the decisions being made in climate change. However, whilst diversity is crucial to long-term sustainable solutions, caution needs to be made that it’s not interpreted as taking the onus away from those causing the issues to take responsibility in addressing them.  Amy 694871

# data[].attributes.body
They both make great points, and I agree that sustainability may not have an immediate and simple solution. However, I sensed ethnocentric and paternalistic tones in their vie for change. That being said, I do recognise the difficulty in between the two concepts; perfectly balancing our roles in ensuring the future of the next generation and deciding what exactly they need to garner a future they would want. I found the reading overall interesting, but am very keen to explore more sustainable solutions to the problem of unsustainability.

695875

# data[].attributes.body
I would like to quote Bill Adams in Page 15, the “Top down” conservation strategies, and take an example of a development-ecology dilemma. In some rural villages in Thailand, local people are training the elephants in a cruel way for tourism industry. The government and NGOs are pushing an environment-friendly policy and reduce such behaviours. However, the elephant tourism accounts for the main part of local income. As Bill Adams puts, we tends to impose the greatest restraints on local populations rather than the consumers driving international trade. In my opinion, the root of the dilemma lies in a strange appetite of modern people, that we are keen on watching the nature to obey human society, especially industrial society ways. Why would the local tourism bod down if the animals remain in their natural life (a natural park)? That might be the key problem.
694929 Wang Jiageng

# data[].attributes.headline
To respond to the post on agricultural biodiversity

# data[].attributes.subject
To respond to the post on agricultural biodiversity

# data[].attributes.body
Yes I have learned that some places in China are promoting a mixed-planting agriculture, mostly are the forest crops. Although the policy is mainly with a economic motivation, it still may benefit the environment. In contrast to normal imagination, an agricultural field with single plant is a main source of pollution. And it also damages local biodiversity. By the way I would like to mention that when I was a child, some old dictionaries I read are really interesting. In the items of any animals and plants, the editor introduced them in an economical aspect, like what they can be used for, what they can be made into, or if it is beneficial or harmful for agriculture. I think it reflected how a growing economic entity look at the world.

# data[].attributes.headline
The respond to agricultural biodiversity above is made by Wang Jiageng 694929.

# data[].attributes.subject
The respond to agricultural biodiversity above is made by Wang Jiageng 694929.

# data[].attributes.body
Brightman and Lewis's route through the history of "sustainability" includes the romantics like Goethe, who was already proposing an "economy of nature". An early opposition to the Enlightenment's concept of human beings as centre and owners of the environment. It makes me reflect on how the discussion is been on the table for centuries, perhaps with more coverage today, but still really far from achieving a change in human's behaviour towards a sustainable economy.

The Invention of Nature by Andrea Wulf came to my mind precisely because it tells the story of Humboldt's conception of the Earth. This geographer, naturalist, romantic philosopher and scientist, who was inspired by Goethe shapes and inspires the modern academic ideas nature and humans as part of the environment. But also; and in response to Ioli (695883) about Ancient Greeks and more holistic points of view for an integral understanding; Humboldt work and interaction with diverse fields shows the vivid example of the benefits in interdisciplinary approaches. I think one of the main faults of the Industrial Revolution is the "specialisation". Leaving the comprehension of other fields for others and making consensus harder to achieve. Furthermore, the awareness of macro-phenomenon harder to understand. Perhaps one of the reasons why sustainability is far to be a reality.

Tito (696601)